This month I'm reading Ryan Avent's The Gated City. He
writes for The Economist and recently had two excellent blogs on geographical
economics:
The Gated City is a Kindle Single in which Mr Avent argues
that “Our cities are where most of us live, where most of our economic output
is produced, and where most of the ideas that enrich our lives originate. When
they function well, the act as engines of discovery and opportunity. When they
do not, the economy suffers, and the labour force with it”.
Something has gone wrong:
He starts with the concerns about
the U.S. economy: slower growth and rising inequality. He also briefly outlines
some of the explanations:
- Worker bargaining power has declined (Krugman)
- The demand for skills has shifted (Autor)
- The education system has not been successful at increasing educational attainment (Katz & Goldin)
- The emerging world is catching up
- The low-hanging fruit of available land, uneducated population and revolutionary technological innovations are gone and growth has slowed (Cowen).
Mr Avent
agrees that there is some truth to all these explanations, but wants to add
another: “That America has made its productive locations ever less accessible.
The best opportunities are found in one place, and for some reason most
Americans are opting to live in another”.
He argues
this point by highlighting the productivity of cities, but notes that cities
are often reined in “because we worry that urban growth will be unpleasant”.
His example is of the San Francisco Bay area, which, despite wonderful climate, culture,
innovation and much higher than average wages, have lost residents, while
places like Phoenix, Arizona have been growing. This is ascribed to differences
in the cost of living, specifically housing. It is a question of supply not
meeting demand in the right places and it is often caused by residents who oppose
development because they want to “protect neighbourhoods, views and buildings
they love from changes they fear”. This, Not-In-My-Back-Yard view has
significant consequences.
Mr Avent
estimates that migration from costly cities to affordable but less productive
ones overthe period 2000 to 2009 may have cost the American economy between
0.25% and 0.5% of GDP per year. Adding the effect of lost innovation of growth,
new firm creation and employment, the cost may be trillions in lost output.
And here is some local flavour:
Drawing
this line of work closer to a South African home, the first thing to note
is that there are few studies that take this spatial approach to growth or the
labour market. The notable exceptions come from Naude (2008)** and Haveman &
Kearney (2010)*.
Naudé
(2008) examined the possibility of a spatial mismatch in the metropolitan
labour market as an explanation of the differences in unemployment rates
between the white and black populations.
He used data from the 1996 and 2001 censuses and employed various
methods measuring the extent of suburbanisation of the population and
employment, examining the relationship between residential segregation and
unemployment, analysing commuting distances and taking into account differences
in earnings and education. The results
showed that there exists a spatial mismatch between jobs and jobseekers and
that distance from the city centre plays a significant role as a predictor of
black unemployment.
The most recent contribution comes from Havemann and Kearney (2010) who
argue that where you live matters. They
used 2001 census data to construct an urbanisation index at district council
level and used it along with a range of individual-specific predictors of
employment from the Labour Force Survey of March 2005. The results show a positive relationship between
urbanisation and the probability of being employed. For example, someone in Johannesburg is 1.5
times more likely to be employed than a similar individual in a medium-sized
town.
* HAVEMANN,
R. & KEARNEY, M. 2010. Where you live matters: Urbanisation and
labour market outcomes. Economic
Research Southern Africa, Policy Paper Number 17.
** NAUDé,
W.A. 2008. Is there a spatial mismatch in South Africa’s
metropolitan labour market? Cities, 25: 268-276.
The aim of
this blog is to write more about these issues. I am going to keep reading The
Gated City and adding some SA flavour. Stay tuned...
No comments:
Post a Comment